RobG
Well-known member
Actually is was U.S. code. Please forgive me for sourcing official information in a conversation on the topic.
I'm going to get some work done. Please carry on with your rant.
Armed Threats on Bison?
- Thread starter katqanna
- Start date
- Status
Actually is was U.S. code. Please forgive me for sourcing official information in a conversation on the topic.
I'm going to get some work done. Please carry on with your rant.
katqanna
Well-known member
Nemont, when I say edit, I mean cut off the portion preceding the public comments and cut off the portion just after. Convert from WAV format to MP3 for quicker download time. Note particular time stamp points if people dont want to listen to the whole thing, but do want to hear the particulars. I dont edit out comments. I always have full dialogue for context. It will certainly not be a waste of my time for the public to be able to hear what the ag/rancher community expressed at that meeting. There were so many public comments, it was about an hour and a half. Not knowing your real name, you may be one of the commenter and I would not know it.
Look at it this way, I am gladly providing the ag/ranching community yet another opportunity to voice their opinions, which they have every right to do, to a broader audience than they originally had available the first time.
As to the reality of the threats there, I believed the warning before I drove up there, that my vehicle might be vandalized with my bison bumper sticker on there, so that I shaved it off before the trip, since I dont have triple AAA and could not afford to replace my tires there. Had to remove my Texas Longhorn emblem off of my suburban after it was vandalized by NE Cornhusker zealots - twice. Having learned that lesson, I felt I was being prudent in removing the bison sticker just in case.
Topgun 30-06
Active member
Nemont, you have gone on a n afternoon rant and haven't read what has actually been stated by any of us, including myself. Go back and read my post. I did not say any of what was stated did happen. I stated IF it did or IF it happened in the future it would indeed be terrorism and exactly what has happened down in NV with the Bundy cattle situation. Call it what you want, but IF people say they are coming to a meeting armed when there is absolutely no need to, then it is certainly what we are saying and no way you can say anything different!
PS: That was a piss poor comment to say that the OP is editing something to prove her point when it would be very easy to check meeting transcripts to see if that was happening.
PS: That was a piss poor comment to say that the OP is editing something to prove her point when it would be very easy to check meeting transcripts to see if that was happening.
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
Whatever, IF anyone believed there was are REAL threat then show me the police report and/or the Sheriff's report.
the OP didn't offer transcripts she said she would edit an audio of the meeting. Trust but verify is the the word.
Why deal in IF's? Either nobody believed the threats were real or they were willing to chance an armed confrontation because the person who says they heard these threats didn't bother to report them to authorities.
I am not on a rant, I am telling you that the OP is demonizing ranchers and placing blame on them for a meeting being canceled for political gain.
I have read everything and people who use the "if" question in regards to such a thing and then connect to terrorism based on that "if". Again why isn't there a police report showing that somebody actually believe these threats or don't people believe in reporting terrorist acts?
There is a difference between a rant and calling out a poster that is hiding behind a second hand "source", who has an agenda and has no problem painting ranchers as terrorist.
Nemont
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
Did you report these threats to your personal property to the police?
Seems like if you believed that there were armed people willing to harm your property to get their point across you would have taken the threat a little more seriously then just taking a razor blade to a bumper sticker.
Nemont
RobG
Well-known member
Nemont - here is another link to some state code that might help your situation: http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/50_46_3.htm
Just bring a copy of this thread to a doctor and you'll get a 'script.
Yes I'm joking... lighten up, we are not out to get you or the ranchers.
Just bring a copy of this thread to a doctor and you'll get a 'script.
Yes I'm joking... lighten up, we are not out to get you or the ranchers.
katqanna
Well-known member
Audio link MP3 1 hr 31 minutes.
You can hear the ag/rancher concerns from US debt to water rights, grazing rights and everything in between.
The Yellowstone National Park kept being brought up - "fix that first", despite statements before that the Yellowstone National Park is not in Montana's jurisdiction.
17:44 is my comment. I want to clarify a point I make about liking my meat wild. One of the women ranchers on the working group made a comment earlier in the day that if hunters wanted to hunt bison, then they could do so on a ranch as livestock. So I was going on record that I want my wildlife wild, not livestock in a fence.
33:40 Chuck Rain states that there may be recourse of closing land to public hunting.
45:26 Sierra states they did a survey in Valley County and 6% stated they wanted free roaming bison, with 79% no. (This is more than I have heard from them before and is heartening that there are some from that area who want bison on public lands and there is not 94% against)
59:30 Martin brings up US debt (not sure what that had to do with bison but he had public comment time like anyone else.)
1:12:01 Mike Erdaux very calmly stated, "keep pushing and we will push back, you might not like the outcome."
1:16:25 Jason brought up water rights, grazing rights and not designating the bison as wildlife, sentiments that were repeated by others.
Yes, the majority spoke adamantly against bison on public lands. During the public comment period the armed protest or gun comments were not stated, so I have no audio proof during this time slot. I dont have time for a few days to listen to the rest of the two day meeting to see if any of that got picked up on audio. So count it as unverified and I am fine with that. I know what I heard and what was told to me directly by those that did not like my public comment. I didnt think at the time that the whole process would get shut down because of a protest threat. We need the public process. We need open dialogue, even if it is angsty. But to shut down the whole process because of a protest threat, armed or otherwise, does not benefit any Montanans.
Just doing a short search online I found this comment from the Flint Report on the Northern Ag Network - Did Nevada Standoff Force MT FWP to Cancel Bison Meeting? A commenter, Kantorowicz from Great Falls wrote -
In case it disappears
You can hear the ag/rancher concerns from US debt to water rights, grazing rights and everything in between.
The Yellowstone National Park kept being brought up - "fix that first", despite statements before that the Yellowstone National Park is not in Montana's jurisdiction.
17:44 is my comment. I want to clarify a point I make about liking my meat wild. One of the women ranchers on the working group made a comment earlier in the day that if hunters wanted to hunt bison, then they could do so on a ranch as livestock. So I was going on record that I want my wildlife wild, not livestock in a fence.
33:40 Chuck Rain states that there may be recourse of closing land to public hunting.
45:26 Sierra states they did a survey in Valley County and 6% stated they wanted free roaming bison, with 79% no. (This is more than I have heard from them before and is heartening that there are some from that area who want bison on public lands and there is not 94% against)
59:30 Martin brings up US debt (not sure what that had to do with bison but he had public comment time like anyone else.)
1:12:01 Mike Erdaux very calmly stated, "keep pushing and we will push back, you might not like the outcome."
1:16:25 Jason brought up water rights, grazing rights and not designating the bison as wildlife, sentiments that were repeated by others.
Yes, the majority spoke adamantly against bison on public lands. During the public comment period the armed protest or gun comments were not stated, so I have no audio proof during this time slot. I dont have time for a few days to listen to the rest of the two day meeting to see if any of that got picked up on audio. So count it as unverified and I am fine with that. I know what I heard and what was told to me directly by those that did not like my public comment. I didnt think at the time that the whole process would get shut down because of a protest threat. We need the public process. We need open dialogue, even if it is angsty. But to shut down the whole process because of a protest threat, armed or otherwise, does not benefit any Montanans.
Just doing a short search online I found this comment from the Flint Report on the Northern Ag Network - Did Nevada Standoff Force MT FWP to Cancel Bison Meeting? A commenter, Kantorowicz from Great Falls wrote -
In case it disappears
Last edited:
Nemont
Well-known member
That is pretty weak and if that is the standard of protest used as a pretext to shut down a public meeting then we will never have another legislative session or even a school board meeting on a controversial subject.
If you are afraid of Sierra Stoneberg-Holt and Mike Ereaux then there is no hope for ever getting anyone to the table to hash out an agreement that can be taken to the Governor.
Hearsay isn't evidence of a threat and posting on a blog are just internet posting, there has been far more inflammatory rhetoric stated on this site and it wasn't taken down.
Did you report what you heard as a threat to your life and property to the police or did you just laugh it off as rhetoric from the other side and then decide it could be terrorism?
Nemont
If you are afraid of Sierra Stoneberg-Holt and Mike Ereaux then there is no hope for ever getting anyone to the table to hash out an agreement that can be taken to the Governor.
Hearsay isn't evidence of a threat and posting on a blog are just internet posting, there has been far more inflammatory rhetoric stated on this site and it wasn't taken down.
Did you report what you heard as a threat to your life and property to the police or did you just laugh it off as rhetoric from the other side and then decide it could be terrorism?
Nemont
Nemont- I have to agree with you that these are pretty flimsy threats and shouldn't be able to shut down a meeting. I would definitely be looking at different causes that shut down the meeting. I do see rhetoric against the government (fed, state, county etc) getting out of hand quickly since Clive Bundy was able to hold off the BLM. I believe a threat of "militia" is something that will be used in quite a few circumstances and the problem is, you never know when to see it as serious and when to see it as pure rhetoric.
As far as threats go...it's a strange thing. According to a police officer in Missoula, if you hear about a threat second hand (even if there are multiple witnesses), there is nothing that can be done. If you hear a threat personally but no other witnesses, nothing can be done.
As far as threats go...it's a strange thing. According to a police officer in Missoula, if you hear about a threat second hand (even if there are multiple witnesses), there is nothing that can be done. If you hear a threat personally but no other witnesses, nothing can be done.
Nemont
Well-known member
MattK,
Here is the thing, had there been no mention that this meeting was canceled due to the threat of armed terrorist I would not have posted at all. I think Kat is half a bubble off plumb but she is passionate, well read and does a ton of research. IMO it is crossing the line to say that your opponents are terrorist. Had that not been mentioned, I give two shits about whether or not there was or was not a meeting.
What if you claim you heard and a state official heard it but both you and they declined to act until a meeting was canceled and convenient scapegoat could be found in the form of "threats" instead of the obvious? The obvious is that the FWP is worried about their budget in the legislature, (whom we the people elect to do our bidding) and that without Brian Schweitzer to do the heavy lifting for the supporters of wild bison there is little to no reason to meet. Way easier to wave a red flag and declare an imagined threat of terrorism as the reason.
Nemont
Last edited:
Musket Man
New member
The ranchers are against this because they are the ones that would be affected by it. Not only are buffalo destructive and damage fences many of them carry Brucellosis which can be spread to domestic cattle and cause them to abort. If I was running cows in MT I would be fighting it all I could too.
Any bison used in a translocation would, by law, have to be brucellosis free. The fear of spreading brucellosis is a false flag. Yellowstone bison are tested more than any domestic herd of livestock when coming out of quarantine.
APR brings in bison from Canada all the time and they are brucellosis free as well.
As far as damage to fences,etc, there are existing laws that protect landowners & livestock from this. The excuses listed have nothing to do with the actual issue and everything to do with just stopping the discussion.
Musket Man
New member
Try telling a buffalo there are laws against them damaging fences. LOL
shoots-straight
Well-known member
I believe landowners have a certain responsibility to allow wildlife on their lands.
Last edited:
Have you ever heard of the US Constitution?
Let me guess, you don't have to feed your children using money made off of your land.
spook12
New member
Please do tell.
Tell what?
Yes.
Do you also think landowners have a responsibility to allow Bison on their land?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Rack, your not in 3rd grade anymore:
Not one but two different ruling on the subject. So yes landowners must be prepared for wildlife usage.
Last edited:
- Status
